Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:56:18.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ministerial Responsibility and Impeachment in Prussia 1848–63

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Erich Hahn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This opening statement from Robert Mohl's study of ministerial responsibility, published in 1837, summed up an axiom of mid-nineteenth-century German liberalism. However, as Otto Pflanze has shown recently, most German liberals did not demand the political or parliamentary responsibility of ministers. They believed that legal responsibility, or the chambers' right to impeach ministers, would guarantee constitutional government and thereby fulfill their Rechtsstaat ideal, which called for the strict observance of public law.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1977 , pp. 3 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Two grants from the Canada Council enabled me to do the archival research for this article.

1. Mohl, Robert, Die Verantwortlichkeit der Minister in Einherrschaften mit Volksvertretung (Tübingen, 1837), p. 1.Google Scholar

2. Pflanze, Otto, “Juridical and Political Responsibility in Nineteenth-Century Germany,” in The Responsibility of Power: Historical Essays in Honor of Hajo Holborn, ed. Krieger, Leonard and Stern, Fritz (New York, 1967), pp. 162–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Buddeus, , Die Ministerverantwortlichkeit in constitutionellen Monarchien: Monographie eines alten Geschaäftsmannes (Leipzig, 1833), pp. 101ff., gives a chronological account of the introduction of ministerial responsibility in German and European states.Google Scholar

4. Huber, Ernst Rudolf, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte seit 1789 (Stuttgart, 1960), 2: 70–73;Google ScholarMohl, , Verantwortlichkeit der Minister, pp. 714–23.Google Scholar

5. Huber, Ernst Rudolf, ed., Dokumente zur deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte (Stuttgart, 1961), 1: 365–67;Google Scholarcf. Huber, , Verfassungsgeschichte, 2: 578–79.Google Scholar

6. Zentrales Staatsarchiv, Hist. Abt. II, Merseburg (hereafter cited as ZSTA Merseburg), Zivilkabinett, Geheimes, 2.2.1, Nr. 179, contains the petition and reply; the latter was also published in the Ministerialblatt für die gesammte innere Verwaltung in den Königlich Preussischen Staaten, hereafter: Ministerialblatt (Berlin, 1848), p. 85.Google Scholar

7. ZSTA Merseburg, Geheimes Zivilkabinett, 2.2.1, Nr. 3692.

8. Hartung, Fritz, “Verantwortliche Regierung, Kabinette und Nebenregierungen im konstitutionellen Preussen, 1848–1918,” Forschungen zur brandenburgischen und preussischen Geschichte 44 (1932): 5–7.Google ScholarValentin, Veit, Geschichte der deutchen Revolution von 1848–49 (Aalen, 1968), 2: 64–66.Google Scholar

9. Cabinet to Frederick William, May 13, 1848, Geheimes Preussisches Staatsarchiv, Berlin Dahlem (hereafter GPSA Berlin), Rep. 90, Nr. 182; published in Haenchen, Karl, ed., Revolutionsbriefe 1848: Ungedrucktes aus dem Nachlass Friedrich Wilhelm IV (Leipzig, 1930), pp. 97–98.Google Scholar

10. Frederick William to Camphausen, May 14, 1848, Brandenburg, Erich, “König Friedrich Wilhelm IV: Briefwechsel mit Ludolf Camphausen,” Deutsche Rundschau 126 (1906): 103.Google Scholar

11. Ibid., p. 243, Frederick William to Camphausen, June 4, 1848.

12. Cabinet to Frederick William, Sept. 9, 1848, ZSTA Merseburg, Geheimes Zivilkabinett, 2.2.1, Nr. 3692; published in Ministerialblatt (1848), p. 249.Google Scholar

13. Memorandum by Frederick William, Sept. 11, 1948, ZSTA Merseburg, Rep. 50, E2, Nr. 5; partly published in Frahm, Friedrich, “Entstehungs- und Entwicklungsgeschichte der preussischen Verfassung vom März 1848 biz zum Januar 1850,” Forschungen zur brandenburgischen und preussischen Geschichte 41 (1928): 266–67.Google Scholar

14. Memorandum by Frederick William, Sept. 15, 1848, ZSTA Merseburg, Rep. 50, E2, Nr. 5; published in Haenchen, , Revolutionsbriefe, pp. 175–78.Google Scholar

15. Ministerialblatt (1848), pp. 281–82.

16. Correspondence between Pfuel, the cabinet, and Frederick William, Oct. 7–20, 1848, ZSTA Merseburg, Rep. 50, Corresp. P. 1047, and Rep. 50, E2, Nr. 5; published in Haenchen, , Revolutionsbriefe, pp. 191–207, esp. nos. 106, 108, 110–11, 113–14, 120.Google Scholar

17. Unsigned draft for the cabinet, Nov. 1848, ZSTA Merseburg, Geheimes Zivilkabinett, 2.2.1, Nr. 26411.

18. Haenchen, , Revolutionsbriefe, p. 160;Google Scholar see ZSTA Merseburg, Rep. 50, E2, Nr. 5, for the draft constitution of Nov. 23, 1848, with Frederick William's marginalia; cf. von Manteuffel, Otto Freiherr, Unter Friedrkh Wilhelm IV: Denkwürdigkeiten des Ministerpräsidenten Otto Freiherr von Manteuffel, ed. Poschinger, Heinrich (Berlin, 1901), 1: 50–51.Google Scholar

19. Cabinet to the king, Jan. 3, 1850, GPS A Berlin, Rep. 90, Nr. 182.

20. Huber, , Dokumente, 1: 405–7;Google Scholar the constitution of December 1848 had identical articles (nos. 41, 42, 47, 59), Ibid., pp. 389–90. The government's first draft constitution of May 15, 1848, had adapted English procedure. It gave the lower chamber the right to impeach and made the upper chamber the tribunal. The procedure outlined in Article 61 was worked out by the national assembly in 1848.

21. Simons to Manteuffel, July 26, 1850, GPSA Berlin, Rep. 84a, Nr. 2093; this file, beginning in March 1849, contains the correspondence and preliminary drafts for the completion of Article 61.

22. Manteuffel to Simons, July 7, Sept. 10, 1850, GPSA Berlin Rep. 84a, Nr. 2093.

23. Enax, Karl, Otto von Manteuffel und die Reaktion in Preussen (Dresden, 1907), esp. pp. 27–40, exaggerates Manteuffel's dislike for the constitution. Manteuffel would not resurrect the corporate state, and never yielded to Frederick William's wishes to scrap the constitution;Google Scholar see Hartung, , “Verantwortliche Regierung,” pp. 12–13;Google ScholarGillis, John R., The Prussian Bureaucracy in Crisis, 1840–1860 (Stanford, 1970), pp. 132, 145–46.Google Scholar

24. For the text of the bill see Stenographische Berichte über die Verhandlungen des Landtages, Zweite Kammer, Haus der Abgeordneten, hereafter: SBHA (1850), Drucksachen, Nr. 58.

25. SBHA (1851), Kleist-Retzow, p. 129; cf. Arnim, pp. 134–35.

26. Ibid., Wentzel, p. 130.

27. Ibid., Arnim, pp. 151–52.

28. SBHA (1851), Drucksachen, Nr. 58, pp. 22–23.

29. SBHA (1851), Simson, p. 150.

30. Stahl, Friedrich Julius, Die Philosophie des Rechts, II, Rechts- und Staatslehre auf der Grundlage christlicher Weltanschauung (Heidelberg, 1846);Google Scholar cf. Oestreich, Gerhard, “Monarchisches Prinzip,” in Staat und Politik, ed. Fraenkel, Ernst and Bracher, Karl Dietrich (Frankfurt, 1957), pp. 199–202;Google Scholar for an excellent review of pre-1848 German political theories about the role of the king and parliament see Boldt, Hans, “Zwischen Patrimonialismus und Parlamentarismus: Zur Entwicklung Vorparlamentarischer Theorien in der deutschen Staatslehre des Vormärz,” in Gesellschaft, Parlament und Regierung: Zur Geschichte des Parlamentarismus in Deutschland, ed. Ritter, Gerhard A. (Düsseldorf, 1974), pp. 77–100.Google Scholar

31. Stahl, , Philosophie des Rechts, pp. 322–32, 342–44.Google Scholar

32. Ibid., p. 349.

33. Stenographische Berichte über die Verhandlungen des Landtages, Erste Kammer, Herrenhaus, hereafter: SBHH (1851), Drucksachen, Nr. 170, pp. 1–2.

34. Ibid., p. 5.

35. Ibid., p. 7.

36. Ibid., p. 16.

37. Saegert to the king, Apr. 10, 1851, GPSA Berlin, Rep. 192 Saegert, Nr. 37; for an account of their extraordinary relationship see Kutzsch, Gerhard, “Friedrich Wilhelm IV. und Carl Wilhelm Saegert,” Jahrbuch für die Geschkhte Mittel- und Ostdeutschlands 6 (1957): 133–72.Google Scholar

38. von Gerlach, Ernst Ludwig, Von der Revolution zum Norddeutschen Bund: Politik und Ideengut der preussischen Hochkonservativen, 1848–1866, ed. Diwald, Hellmut (Göttingen, 1970), 1: 285.Google Scholar

39. Cabinet to Frederick William, May 31, 1851, GPSA Berlin, Rep. 90, Nr. 182.

40. SBHA (1851), pp. 1154, 1157; SBHA (1852), Drucksachen, Nr. 34; (1853), Nr. 43; (1855), Nr. 143.

41. Salomon, Felix, Die deutschen Parteiprogramme (Leipzig, 1912), 1: 73.Google Scholar

42. Cabinet minutes Dec. 8,15,20,1858, GPSA Berlin, Rep. 90, Nr. 182; on the membership of the “new era” cabinet cf. Huber, , Verfassungsgeschichte, 3: 272–73.Google Scholar

43. GPSA Berlin, Rep. 84a, Nr. 2094; the MSS are 30 pp. and 5 pp. long; they bear no date and are annotated: “Author: Attorney General Grimm”; their content and location allow the assumption that they were drafted in accordance with the cabinet decision of Dec.20, 1858, in preparation for an expected from the second chamber.

44. Ibid., quotations pp. 15, 21.

45. Cabinet minutes Sept. 19, i860, GPSA Berlin, Rep. 90, Nr. 182; on Schwerin-Putzar see Huber, , Verfassungsgeschichte, 2: 577, n. 17, and 3: 273.Google Scholar

46. Cabinet memorandum, Oct. 23, i860, GPSA Berlin, Rep. 84a, Nr. 2094.

47. Ibid., memorandum Roon, Nov. 7, 1860; Heydt, Nov. 29, 1860.

48. Ibid., memorandum Patow, Nov. 22, 1860; Bethmann-Hollweg, Nov. 19, 1860; Schwerin-Putzar, Nov. 15, 1860.

49. Cabinet minutes Dec. l, 1860, GPSA Berlin, Rep. 90, Nr. 182.

50. Simons resigned after it became known that in 1855 he had condoned illegal investigating practices by Berlin's police chief Hinkeldey, Huber, , Verfassungsgeschichte, 3: 288, n. 34;Google Scholar Bernuth had supported a bill on ministerial responsibility in the first chamber in 1851, cf. SBHA (1861), p. 940.

51. Cabinet minutes, Dec. 28, 1860, GPSA Berlin, Rep. 90, Nr. 182.

52. Ibid., and cabinet minutes Dec. 31, 1860; the cabinet dropped the provision whereby the executive had the privilege and obligation to withhold certain documents from impeachment trials, because the provision contradicted criminal procedure.

53. Ibid., cabinet minutes Jan. 9, 11, 12, 1861; for Article 49 see above, p. 8.

54. See SBHA (1861), Drucksachen, Nr. 156, for the committee report on the Behrend and Carlowitz motions.

55. SBHA (1861), Blankenburg, pp. 957–58.

56. SBHA (1861), Rosenberg-Lipinski, p. 938; cf. Berg, p. 949.

57. Ibid., Gneist, p. 969; Beseler, pp. 943–44.

58. Ibid., August Reichensperger, p. 946.

59. Huber, , Verfassungsgeschichte, 3: 286–91.Google Scholar

60. SBHA (1861), Drucksachen, Nr. 156, pp. 5–6.

61. Pflanze, Otto, Bismarck and the Development of Germany (Princeton, 1963), pp. 159–60.Google Scholar

62. SBHA (1861), Carlowitz, p. 965.

63. Ibid., p. 969.

64. Cabinet minutes Oct. 5, 1861, GPSA Berlin, Rep. 90, Nr. 183.

65. Ibid., William to the cabinet, Nov. 19, 1861.

66. Ibid., cabinet minutes Dec. 7, 1861.

67. Ibid., cabinet to William, Dec. 16, 1861.

68. Ibid., Roon to William, Dec. 17, 1861. William's brother Prince Frederick Karl may have prompted Roon's reversal by a letter (Dec. 17,1861) which was sure to trigger the war minister's feudal reflexes. The prince begged Roon to oppose ministerial responsibility because it would shift the balance of power from the monarch to the second chamber, see von Roon, Waldemar, ed., Denkwürdigkeiten aus dem Leben des General-Feldmarschalls Kriegsministers Grafen von Roon (Breslau, 1897), 2: 58–61.Google Scholar

69. Cabinet minutes Dec. 21, 23, 1861, GPSA Berlin, Rep. 90, Nr. 183; the new bill was ready on Dec. 26.

70. Ibid., Roon raised his demands in the cabinet meetings of Dec. 21, 23, 1861; his resignation was submitted on or before Dec. 24, cf. Roon, , Denkwürdigkeiten, 2: 61–62.Google Scholar

71. Cabinet minutes Dec. 31, 1861, and Bernuth to Auerswald, Jan. 3, 1862, GPSA Berlin, Rep. 84a, Nr. 2095.

72. Cabinet minutes Jan. 4, 1862, GPSA Berlin, Rep. 90, Nr. 183.

73. Ibid., Cabinet to William, Jan. 6, 1862. William's note on cabinet minutes of Jan. 6, 1862, ZSTA Merseburg, Geheimes Zivilkabinett 2.2.1, Nr. 179.

74. GPSA Berlin, Rep. 90, Nr. 183.

75. SBHH (1862), Anlagen, Nr. 3, p. 11.

76. Ibid., p. 18.

77. Ibid., p. 20.

78. SBHH (1862), Kleist-Retzow, pp. 34–36; cf. Goetze, p. 44; Below, pp. 41–42.

79. SBHH (1862), p. 45.

80. SBHH (1862), Friedberg, p. 65; Bernuth, p. 67; cf. SBHH (1862), Anlagen, Nr. 3, pp. 11, 14. In explaining the draft bill, the government expressed the fear that any regular court assigned to try impeached ministers “would be accorded a political influence that would in some ways exceed all other powers in the state, and would hardly be compatible with its role as a king's court of justice.” To what extent Prussia's high and lower courts were in fact unpolitical, as officials liked to claim, deserves to be investigated.

81. SBHA (1862), p. 920.

82. Undated draft memorandum by Lippe and his similar cabinet memorandum of Nov. 25, 1862, GPSA Berlin, Rep. 84a, Nr. 2096.

83. Draft bill Nov. 25, 1862, GPSA Berlin, Rep. 90, Nr. 183.

84. This was even pointed out in a memorandum by Trade Minister v. Itzenplitz, Jan. 8, 1863, GPSA Berlin, Rep. 90, Nr. 184.

85. Ibid., on Jan. 13, 1863, Lippe submitted to the cabinet his draft and a covering letter for William. The cabinet did not discuss it.

86. SBHA (1863), Drucksachen, Nr. 72, pp. 3–4.

87. SBHA (1863), Immermann, p. 956; Gneist, p. 958.

88. SBHA (1863), p. 952.

89. SBHA (1863), p. 959.

90. Kohl, Horst, ed., Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck (Aalen, 1970), 13: 118, address by Bismarck, July 1892.Google Scholar

91. Memorandum Mar. 1906; ZSTA Merseburg, Rep. 77, Tit. 182, 65 Bd. 2.

92. Hahn, Erich J. C., “Rudolf von Gneist (1816–1895): The Political Ideas and Political Activity of a Prussian Liberal in the Bismarck Period” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1971), pp. 122-26Google Scholar. The Rechtsstaat principle was also sacrificed repeatedly during the passage of the Kulturkampf and the antisocialist laws in the 1870s. Ibid., pp. 215–32, 238–45.